Lets try to work out a solution for the Security Scripts Issue

My mistake about the damage (had it set on), sent in a report on a resident I never heard of. I was over my own property. Acording to the log a script hit me by "what's his name".

Well that is why I object to your security scripts, over my own property! Must be a security program defending their privacy. I am suppose to take this and do nothing? What about my rights? Have checked and the properties around mine are safe, had to be over mine when hit. Have corrected setting.

Why are you equating that with security scripts. Seems far more likley that you were shot by someone intending to grief you - and not a neighbor's security script.

What else could it have been? Strange never heard of this resident before tonight. Found my Tarn at 110 meters above my property. Wonder if the Lindens will do something?

Cant think of why "whats his name" had against me.

*blinks*

Um. Never mind.

Ranma this was not a security script in the sense we are talking about. This was very likely some jerk with a weapon taking pot shots at strangers for kicks and giggles. It does happen in SL. Unfortunately because your land was damage enabled odds are LL will not discipline the jerk that did it.

I am sorry this happened to you but it is indeed a seperate issue from what we are discussing here.

Have no idea of what it was, there was no message other than being dead. Can these weapons eject someone from a vehicle?

Yes some of them can pretty much "kill" you anywhere any time.

Cubey Terra's balloons can be seen set up on builds all over the place, but I don't know if they're for use or show. Chage McCoy's Mehve is pretty popular, and it's easy to fly all the way down to a few m/s. I've seen other people flying it a few times.

Yah. And for slow craft you're not going to fly into things you can't see.

I noticed you have a skybox with very obvious warning signs on it, when I was checking out the new approach to Phase 5. Man, they REALLY need to terraform the edge of the ocean there, right now the edge of Caldbeck is totally ugly from the sea.

If scripts are limited to the vicinity of occupied structures, then hard-to-fly and slow flying craft should have no problem. Just stay clear of green dots.

I'm having a hard time parsing that. Would you mind repreasing, please?

Yes, though the security scripts for that 'box do nothing when no P5er is there. I just want to be clear - no surprises.

They are The Cliffs of Inanity!

I'd prefer this m'self, for open areas. Enclosed areas are a different matter to me - since I won't be flying any aircraft through walls...

...er...

...I think maybe it would be good to remind those with security scripts that it is possible to fly through a wall if that wall is right on a sim edge.

[Removed criticisms because the later part of the thread seems to have improved.]

From the perspective of someone that because of necessity has built on Sim edges before this is one of the reasons I wanted the security system to cover my land edge to edge.

The compromise offered is that edge to edge coverage is permissible up to 50m above actual land surface. Can you folks live with this.

There are mnay builds that extend above 50m..so I dont think that will work. I'm not speaking skyboxes..im talking tall buildings. Theres on in my sim that nears 100m. 50m high isn't enough.

Skyboxes are visually obvious objects. Security scripts on skyboxes should be limited to the obvious vicinity of the box. If they are, then slow-moving craft can simply avoid occupied skyboxes.

Security scripts on non-enclosed areas are inane. Toss them off the cliffs of inanity.

Thanks

I agree.

I mentioned that becasue it's helpful to keep in mind for your own goals.

Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. We all pay for the privelege to play in SL in some form. It's important to use our properites in ways that work well with others so that we can all have our fun. That's why most of us are participating in this discussion, I'd imagine.

Knowing that a wall will rez late, not be effective against moving vehices, and that your security script can not give warning that you don't want anyone there becasue the sensor can't see across the sim border either... all adds up to: You probably aren't going to get privacy there, security or not.

As so long as the property being secured was not built against a runway, helipad or other area intended as an airport or "spaceport". Conversely, it's important that anyone building a 'port not build a runway up to the edge of an established secure area.

50M-768M in the proposal we have suggeted Warning + no more than 25M out in all directions from the build (or the land boarder whichever comes first)

The edge to edge setting is only 50m or below. In that small range the landowner gets total control.

above 768m no security

How about this:

From groundlevel to 10m above the top of the tallest -land based- build rather than just within 50m? I'me sure people with towers that encompass penthouses should be able to have full security and total control on that area.

No. The point is to give pilots something to avoid. Darkness has descibed a very clear area for free flight, without removing from land owners the right to build as high as they want and still have the interiors of those builds be private.

The penthouse towers can be avoided, and they point out land to watch for too. if you amend the comppromise as I suggested, then I will say yes. The current compromise makes too much of a hardship on tower/building based penthouse owners, and thus I will vote no, and not agree with it.

What hardship might that be?

they do have control. Within the build itself and extending 25M out from the walls in all directions.

It interferes with their right to security on the own land. Even if the security is only around the build, they still have the right to security around their property. it should also be duly noted that regardless of how you come to a 'compromise' all it takes is a 'nah I don't wanna follow that' to have it ignored.

To be honest, and I'll be the pragmatic one, even if we all, on here, agree to a compromise, it isn't enforcable by any means.

The point is to work to get the Lindens on board once we have a plan and get it written into the rules.

Then it is enforcable.

If that is done, then I will be contacting the lindens as well and aiding in organizing the opposition to the compromise you have written out.

Perhaps all air travel below 100 meters will be stamped out?

I don't feel the allowance for build height based off the ground is much of a stretch.

Imagine security scripts reaching up to 1km rather than the 800m or so they do now.

Edit: i believe they ave mad eit clear by now that lands are allowed nonpush/damage security scripts

Jonas you have made your position clear. Although yesterday you were agreeing to this compromise. You now refuse to compromise at all. So be it. You may react as you choose if this should become the rules. Mean time I think your further commentary in this thread is couterproductive and disruptive. I am asking you not to post more in this thread. Feel free to start another to counter this one if you wish.